Had a couple words with the Manzari Team of Peter Russo and Steven
Keim prior to getting started, all is casual and friendly and
the court house staff are remarkably helpful. But once the players
assume positions I can't help but think of Alice in Wonderland,
off with their heads!

It's a hierarchy of wigs. Customs has two
wigs, a barrister who never says a thing and a QC that takes
the podium. There is also a solicitor (I assume) taking copious
notes and diving through text to hand over to the QC by way of
the barrister. The QC earlier approaches me to sus out who I
am and what I'm doing here, politely of course. He has that kind
of soft spoken private school persona that would be a type cast
of a TV court drama. When he speaks to the court his bushy right
eye brow does a dance on his angular face, up and down in a large
and distracting twitch.

The Manzari team has Peter Russo doing
the note taking and paper shuffling with barrister Steve Keim
in the robe and wig. He speaks in a much more casual tone, can
I just say... No mistaking the expertise behind the conversation,
this man loves the law, but with less pretence. Peter can speak
with care if need be (seen on TV) but in person is a jolly sort.
Well fed, big smile and flash jewellery. He is a sapphire and
diamond guy. The man likes and knows his bling. Thats
OK, so do I.

The judge is another fugitive of the type
cast TV court drama with a little comedy on the side. Maybe it's
an old school thing but his rubber face contorts
into bulging cheeks and pursed lips as he contemplates the material
and comments on statements from the barristers. We all try to
interpret the face play but I suspect it is meant to be inscrutable.
His wig is different from the barristers. It looks like the surface
of a brain instead of the curls.

With everyone in place I do some mental
addition to tally what a proceeding like this can cost. Customs
apparently has little regard for cost. It's not like it's their
money. They will hire whoever in the country they think is best
suited to the particular court. I am informed from Jim Manzari
that he attempted to move the case from Bundaberg to Brisbane
to save money for everyone, but Customs objected and blocked
the effort. Why? Add transport time for the legal teams to the
costs.
The Manzari's have now hired a very good team. These are the
boys who defended the good Doctor Haneef who was erroneously
charged with terrorism a few weeks ago. The fact that a person
defending themselves in a criminal case can be made to pay for
the prosecutions expenses if not successful seems bizarre to
me. The risk is not distributed fairly. Cost means nothing to
the government and everything to someone like a cruising sailor.
This was an important factor that caused other sailors to cop
the guilty plea from Customs charges. My guess is about $30K
for this day in court and maybe more.

Peter Russo had explained earlier that
the appeal had been abandon in favour of an attempt to quash
the conviction. The difference being about the money and the
Manzari's concern for their good name. If successful on this
tack, they would walk away bearing their expense with no hope
of recovering costs from Customs. The problem as it was explained
to me is that an appeal can't be heard on an issue of error in
law, only on error of fact. Actions by previous council limit
the options now available. Barrister Keim argues that the INS
(infringement notice scheme that for the shipping industry replaced
the criminal convictions and large fines that have been applied
to yachties) should have been applied to the Manzari's and that
customs have now relaxed their enforcement of the rules to the
point that the Manzari's wouldn't have been charged in the current
regime. These were all points made in past editions of The Coastal
Passage and in fact TCP was referred to on several occasions
from both parties. Keim points out that the previous court imposed
sentence on the Manzari's based on the prosecutions assertions
that this was a very serious matter but now this
so-called serious matter is mitigated by Customs to the point
that it allows a phone call from a friend as sufficient notice
and don't worry about the 10 day issue at all. The ACS represented
facts as a very serious matter that in fact could
have been handled as a traffic ticket. All this indicating that
the judge made an error because information was not
reasonably available to the magistrate. He further states
precedent giving the court the maximum amount of discretion
to insure justice is done in the introduction of new information
at this kind of hearing. The matter of intention is discussed
in regards to the charge of failing to supply a crew report.
A log from the local VMR indicating the Manzari's had contacted
them as soon as VMR were available in the morning they arrived
was discussed. According to the recent changes to ACS policy
and the document the Manzari's received from the Australian government
office in Noumea prior to sailing, contacting the VMR was an
acceptable kind of notice. This argument gets interesting enough
the bailiff puts down his newspaper to have a listen. Also discussed
was the damage caused to the Manzaris by the record of conviction
when entering other countries.

Michael White, the government QC replies
that all of this is inadmissible and irrelevant. He brings up
the Goedhart case and a letter Goedhart received from the minister
saying that he didn't have a criminal conviction. [This letter
surprised Bram Goedhart when he received it. He told me he was
assured in court from his solicitor that as he plead guilty in
a criminal court, he had a criminal conviction] Keim attempted
to use the letter to demonstrate that the charges weren't as
serious as ACS represented to the court and White uses it to
demonstrate that the Manzari's haven't been damaged in their
international reputation by the conviction. White states that
as the Manzari's were represented at the trial the judge should
have had all the information required to make the correct decision,
it wasn't after all, the responsibility of ACS prosecution to
be accurate.

White argues that the Manzari's set sail
with no intent to provide notice of 48 hours or 96 hours. This
is disputed by Keim and according to the Manzari's statement
in TCP, Jim Manzari did attempt contact at 48 hours but was not
within radio range. This comes down to the argument of conduct
knowing.

A surprising point is when White brought
up the other sailors convictions, pointing out that they pleaded
guilty (more or less) thus inferring guilt on the
Manzari's. I was surprised this kind of reference was allowed
and would liked to have volunteered the information that the
reason some had pleaded guilty was in fear of being sucked up
into the maw of a system that has caused the Manzari's so much
hardship. These were all foreign boats and crews with no knowledge
of the court system and in the case of the Goedharts, limited
use of English. This seemed to me to be the very best example
of what should be inadmissible and irrelevant, but
Im just a sailor

And this is where we end. The day was gone
and the judge deferred to a later date to announce his decision.
We give the Manzari team a ride to the airport; making jokes
along the way about the great enjoyment the team had in exposing
the Haneef affidavit to the press that so embarrassed the government
and my enjoyment in the result. They fought hard and well today
but I am worried. My sense of this is that this court may have
favoured the government. I hope I'm wrong. Watch the web site
for the decision.